- (1.) THIS mandamus appeal is at the instance of the two private respondents in a writ application under Article 226 of the constitution of India and is directed against the order dated July 31, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship, after entertaining the writ application and passing direction for filing of the affidavits, granted interim order in terms of prayer 'f' to the writ application till 14th september, 2007. By the aforesaid prayer'f', the writ petitioners prayed for interim order directing the respondent authority not to give effect to its memo bearing Nos. 343/ndita/w/7/2006 and 342/ndita/w/7/2007 both dated July 16, 2007. By those two memoranda, the Executive Officer, NDITA, the respondent No. 6, directed the writ petitioners to remove their hoardings within seven days from the receipt of the letters failing which the NDITA would be compelled to remove the hoardings without further correspondence.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to filing of the writ application out of which the present mandamus appeal arises may be summed up thus: (a) A tender notice was issued by the Secretary, Department of Information and Cultural Affairs, Government of West Bengal by publishing the same in the newspapers on 25th to 28th October, 2005 inviting advertisement agencies with their offers for installation and maintenance of double hoardings in various parts of West Bengal under certain terms and conditions. Based on such advertisement, the writ petitioners expressed their desire to install hoardings in the Kolkata Municipal Area in District of North 24-Parganas by way of a letter dated 5th November, 2005 enclosing all the requisite documents as directed in the said tender notice. (b) The petitioners were called for a discussion held at the Writers' Building in the Director's Chamber on 17th November, 2005 and pursuant to such discussion, the writ petitioner No. 1 by a letter dated 17th November, 2005 prayed for permission before the respondent No. 1 to allow the petitioner no. l to put up 10 hoardings in Birbhum and 10 hoarding in North 24-Parganas. By two memos dated 9th December, 2005 the petitioners were permitted to install the desired hoardings in response to the notice of tender published on 25th October, 2005 and consequently, the respondent No. l on december 9, 2005 by a letter addressed to the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas (North), intimated the details of the agencies entrusted with the work of installing double hoardings under his jurisdiction and asked for necessary co-operation. (c) Nabadiganta Industrial Township Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "ndita") came into existence in the month of February, 2006 and the respondent No. 2 by memo dated 24th February, 2006 referred the names of the agencies permitted for installing hoardings and display signs to the said NDITA. By memos dated 1st March, 2006 and 9th June, 2006 the office of the respondent No. 2 intimated to the District Magistrate, North 24-Parganas and the Chairman, NDITA, respectively, requesting the concerned authorities to make arrangements for installation of hoardings in the areas under the jurisdiction. (d) Subsequently, the writ petitioners made their respective representation before NDITA through letters dated 19th June, 2006 and 21st June, 2006 thereby requesting the respondent No. 5 for its sanction allowing the petitioners to install the hoardings in the area under the NDITA in terms of the directives issued by the respondent No. 1 dated 9th December, 2005. (e) The NDITA on 13th July, 2006 granted permission to the writ petitioners to install 10 hoardings and it was further stated in the said letter that licence-fees/rental charges for the hoardings should be charged as per the existing rules after installation of the hoardings. (f) Subsequently, the petitioners noticed that the some of the authorised hoardings of different persons were demolished at the instance of the NDITA and ultimately, the petitioners received memoranda dated 16th July, 2007 and 19th July, 2007 respectively by which the Executive Officer, NDITA admitted that even though the writ petitioners were allowed to install V-shaped hoardings within the NDITA area on the basis of a request made by the respondent No. 1, since the NDITA had entered into an agreement with the private respondent Nos. 7 and 8, the writ petitioners were directed to remove the hoardings within seven days from the date of receipt of such letter.
(3.) BEING dissatisfied, the writ petitioners came up with the writ application out of which the present mandamus appeal arises.;